tomrc Posted December 17, 2017 Share #1 Posted December 17, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am new to the Leica family having recently purchased the TL2. In my other endeavors with Nikon, Canon and Hasselblad lenses I always had a UV filter on my lenses primarily for protection. I have read that putting a filter on a Leica lens would be a disservice to the lens. I would like to have some opinions on the use or non use of UV filters. Thanks in advance. Tom Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 Hi tomrc, Take a look here UV lens filters for TL Lenses. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted December 17, 2017 Share #2 Posted December 17, 2017 FAQ #1 on this forum. No, it is not a problem to put a filter on a Leica lens. If it were, there would be no filter thread. I would advise, though, to use a protective filter to protect the lens, like a B+W 007. UV filters are meant, ummm... to filter UV. Not that there is a need to do so in 98% of circumstances. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learner Posted December 17, 2017 Share #3 Posted December 17, 2017 I don't imagine that filter / no filter is just a Leica "thing". I imagine that regardless of manufacturer, there are are Yea and Nay sayers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 17, 2017 Share #4 Posted December 17, 2017 Leica designed the M8 to be used with UVIR filters on the lenses. So no, it's not 'wrong' to use filters. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomrc Posted December 17, 2017 Author Share #5 Posted December 17, 2017 Thank you very much for the responses. Was unaware of the B+W 007 clear filters. Always used the UV in the past. I will definately look into them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted December 17, 2017 Share #6 Posted December 17, 2017 Welcome to the forums. The TL lenses are superb and theoretically any glass placed in front of a great optic will degrade the image. In my testing, a single well made filter from a well regarded manufacturer will not degrade the image for most photography, occasional flare being the exception. I wouldn't hesitate to place them on any Leica lens. Roger Cicala of Lens Rentals has blogged about this with some interesting information: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/06/the-comprehensive-ranking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/ 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanetomlane Posted December 24, 2017 Share #7 Posted December 24, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I never use filters, unless for special effect, as I believe adding those extra two surfaces in front of a superb lens can only degrade the quality. We pay a lot of money for Leica lenses because they are probably the best on the market and so why degrade them by adding inferior glass to the front of them. Of course, this is just my opinion and I'll probably change it if I ever damage the front element on my Noctiliux. Cheers, Tom Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojtek Posted December 24, 2017 Share #8 Posted December 24, 2017 (edited) (Btw. In all that post I assume what Jaapv wrote: using filter purely as protection, not for any other effect which is very situational) Tom, I've dome some research in exactly this case few months ago (on different forums). Leica users tend to be more anti-filters than users of other brands. Even Leica officially recommended not to use any filter few years back from what I've heard (because lenses are designed to be perfect as they are). But then they stopped that advice. Many people (let's name them group A) say that will degrade quality, it's pure physics Also many people (group B ) have done some tests with / without filter and no one couldn't see a difference Group A then usually replies with physics argument So we have two arguments and two different verdicts "Physics" argument. It physically must degrade IQ, therefore it does "Eye" argument. No one can see any difference with high quality filter, so it doesn't matter at all I'm with "eye" argument here. Laws of physics don't look at pictures. Our eyes do. But there are two real world effects which you could possibly see one day (but it's not said you surely will) 1. If you use a filter, it's a little bit more possible to get some unwanted lightbeams when you aim lens towards the sun 2. If you use a filter, and you hit something with your lens, it's very possible that filter will absorb some or all of the damage your $2-10k lens would take otherwise If absolute best physically possible IQ is your goal - probably no filter is the way to go If money matters at least one bit - it's cheaper to scratch / break / soil the filter* I hope this post didn't offend any camp, I respect both camps * - although we can dig deeper here as well comparing costs of the filter with the cost of replacing front glass element. Which I won't Edited December 24, 2017 by Wojtek 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwolfy Posted December 29, 2017 Share #9 Posted December 29, 2017 Let me add my 2 cents. I have read stories about people having their lens hit a rock and the filter being broken. As a result, the sharp plastic parts of the filter actually damaged the front lens. This is rare but it can happen. Also, the use of filter at night may create light ghosts in your images. I am not for or against filters...I am also in debate with myself if I should use them or not. Have been using them on my M lenses for years but then stoped and got no problem (considering permanent care). In my opinion...the best option is the hood, after all. It is light, it doesn't have the cons of the filters, it absorbs chockes well and is long enough not to permit most things to enter in contact with your front lens. The only cons is that it is uglay and make your lens looks larger Also...depending on ehat you shoot you may need filters anyway : polarizing filter, ND filters etc. Best Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wojtek Posted December 30, 2017 Share #10 Posted December 30, 2017 I have read stories about people having their lens hit a rock and the filter being broken. As a result, the sharp plastic parts of the filter actually damaged the front lens. This is rare but it can happen. Only one cent here - if a rock hit a bare lens instead, so hard that if would break a filter if it was there, it would probably damage the lens as well I don't know what plastic parts do you mean, but from what I can imagine - there's no way (or a supertiny possibility, if any) that a lens hit with a filter would be more damaged than hit with the same force without the filter. But of course all other arguments against filters hold true 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomrc Posted December 30, 2017 Author Share #11 Posted December 30, 2017 Thank you to everyone who responded to my question regarding filters. Tom Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papimuzo Posted December 31, 2017 Share #12 Posted December 31, 2017 Front lens can be broken, but more realistically it can be scratched, so I'm in the "Yes" camp because I prefer to pay the filter (even an expensive one) replaced rather than the lens itself. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.